Critically assess whether the UK Supreme Court's approach to the use Essay

critically assess whether the UK haughty Courts approach to the use of class period disputation 1966 should be more racial than that - show ExampleThus, the stand of Lords can depart from the preceding decisions as well as the precedents that attain been draw previously, if it wishes to in circumstances where the precedents ar either out of date or err matchlessous. This set a round point in the judicial history of the United Kingdom. As the process of law development is one which is evolving continuously, scholars meet discussed how the practice statement of 1966 can be used more radically. This study critically assesses whether the UK Supreme Courts approach to the use of the Practice Statement 1966 should be more radical than that of the House of Lords, in array to achieve reform of the law. Prior to redeing the various scenarios where the Practice Statement has been used, it is necessary to also at a lower placestand certain terms that are used commonly with regard to it. The first one is rules of precedent. Precedent is the fantasy that either rule that has been established in an earlier case should be adhered to in cases that are similar, so that similar cases should be given similar out pay offs (Garner, 2009). It also means that inferior courts should stand by the decisions that have been do in a superior court. The other important terms include ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. balance decident translates to reason for the decision and obiter dictum translates to statements do by the way or in passing. These are twain parts of a ruling made by the judge (Garner, 2009). Ratio Decidendi explains laws found on which any particular judgment has been made. During the process of judgment delivery, the judge is bound to explain the law and reason based on which he or she arrived at the particular ruling. These are included in the law report and hence, it forms the basis of precedent. Obiter dicta, which are the statements that have been passed by the way and hence they are not binding (Garner, 2009). For example, the discussion or speculations that are made by a judge on how his or her decision would change if the situations had been different fall under obiter dictum. While Obiter dictum is not binding, it is often used as a reference or weighty agent in future cases. Before the Practice Statement was introduced in 1966, there were several instances where the House could not bring about a change from the precedent set because of the rigid stare decisis let the previous decision stay. One such example is that of London Tramway Co Vs. London County Council (1898) (Erp, 2011). Regarding this matter, Lord Halsbury declared that once a decision has been made, it binds the House of Lords and all the other inferior courts. Halsbury said that, I am therefore of opinion that in this case it is not competent for us to rehear and for counsel to reargue a question which has been recently decided. (Erp, 2011, 12) An important aspect to remember with regard to the Practice Statement of 1966 is that the decisions that have been made by the highest body (earlier the House of Lords and now the Supreme court) are binding to all the other courts that come below it. In addition, the decision that have been made by the Supreme court also are binding on itself - however, the Practice statement has enabled it to depart from the previous decisions depending on the particular situations (McLeod, 2011) Practice Statement of 1966 has been used many times, but there are two main cases through which the use of Practice Statement of 1966 can be illustrated. The first major case is that of Herrington Vs. British Railways Board in 1972. In this case, the house